Poonam Srivastav, J. –

Heard the parties.

2. The instant writ petition is preferred challenging the order dated 16.10.1990• (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) as well as the revisional order dated 14.6.1999 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 1 respectively. The Order is under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as CNT Act) alongwith the application for restoration.

3. The primary contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the restoration application was barred by limitation and, therefore, was not maintainable. Besides, the dispute involves, not only question of simpliciter restoration but complicated question of title, mortgage, its redemption etc. and, therefore, it could not be decided in a summary proceeding as has been done in the instant case under Section 71 A of the CNT Act.

4. The facts of the case are that on 9.9.1970, late Masih Das Munda, predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, preferred an application under Section 71 A of the CNT Act for restoration of land. The land in question are Plot Nos. 519 (1.59 Acres) and 520 (29 Decimals) of Khata No. 90/2, Village-Saldega.

5. The submission of the learned counsel is that no date of transfer was mentioned in the restoration application. There was no details relating to transfer 'but merely that the land was transferred in an illegal manner against the provision of Section 46 of the CNT Act.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid application SAR Case No. 140/70-71 was registered. The petitioner filed a show-cause raising a number of objections to the effect that Khata No. 519 was recorded in the name of one Suleman Munda son of Etwa Munda and Bandhana Munda, son of Fago Munda in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights. Both the recorded tenants died issueless but during the life-time, a mortgage deed was executed on 5.4.1926 in favour of one Dilwar Uraon for a sum of Rs. 300/-. The said mortgage was redeemable after 1931 i.e. after five years. The Revisional Survey Record of Rights published also mentions the aforesaid mortgage. The mortgagee continued in possession and the claim of the petitioner is that he acquired title by adverse possession since the mortgage was not redeemed.

7. Dilawar Uraon, mortgagee died leaving behind a son Paul Kachhap and dauhter -in-Iaw Halyani Kachhap. The legal heirs granted a Oar Raiyati Settlement in favour of the petitioner in the year 1956 and, thereafter, the petitioner continues to be in possession of the land in dispute.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioner constructed a house and some other structures and also a pucca well was excavated much before the Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969 came into effect. It is further contended that the name of the petitioner stood mutated vide Mutation Case• No. 29/1961-62.

9. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has strongly contended that there is neither any violation of any of the provisions of the Act much less Section 46 of the CNT Act and also, respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 are neither legal heirs nor successor of the recorded tenant and, therefore, they have no right to claim restoration. The transferee acquired title by adverse possession and, therefore, the restoration application was liable to be rejected outright.

10. On the question of non-contravention of the provisions of the CNT Act. It is contended that under Section 71 A of the CNT Act, there are three prerequisite conditions:-

(i) land must belong to a member of the Scheduled Tribe;

(H) The land must be transferred by the owner/recorded Raiyat of that Scheduled Tribe;

(iii) The transfer must be in contravention with the provisions of CNT Act.

Admittedly, in the instant case, mortgage was entered into in the year 1926 by one Scheduled Tribe in favour of another Scheduled Tribe. At the relevant time, there was no restriction of transfer inter se between the members of the Scheduled Tribe. Thus, there is neith